Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook has posted an open letter to customers opposing U.S. government demands to bypass iOS encryption. Here it is, verbatim:
February 16, 2016
A Message to Our Customers
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.
This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.
The Need for Encryption
Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.
All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.
Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.
For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.
The San Bernardino Case
We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.
When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.
The Threat to Data Security
Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.
A Dangerous Precedent
Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.
The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.
We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.
While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.
Tim Cook
Source: Apple Inc.
MacDailyNews Take: Apple should appeal this wrongheaded decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if need be. No company should be forced to degrade its products and expose its customers to greater risks of attack at the hands of a feckless government.
SEE ALSO:
Apple CEO opposes court order to help FBI unlock San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone – February 17, 2016
Apple wants judge to rule if it can be forced to unlock defendant’s iPhone – February 16, 2016
U.S. House lawmakers seek to outlaw states from banning encrypted iPhones – February 10, 2016
Obama administration wants access to smartphones – December 15, 2015
Obama administration’s calls for backdoors into encrypted communications echo Clinton-era key escrow fiasco – December 14, 2015
Donald Trump: To stop ISIS recruiting, maybe we should be talking to Bill Gates about ‘closing that Internet up in some way’ – December 8, 2015
Hillary Clinton: We need to put Silicon Valley tech firms to ‘work at disrupting ISIS’ – December 7, 2015
Apple CEO Cook: ‘You can’t have a back door that’s only for the good guys’ – November 21, 2015
Apple CEO Cook defends encryption, opposes back door for government spies – October 20, 2015
Do not let the government snoops weaken encryption – November 4, 2015
U.S. NSA seeks to build quantum computer to crack most types of encryption – January 3, 2014
Judge compares government request for Apple to access users’ iPhone data to execution order – October 27, 2015
U.S. judge expresses doubts over forcing Apple to unlock iPhone – October 26, 2015
Apple tells U.S. judge it can’t unlock iPhones running iOS 8 or higher – October 20, 2015
a href=”http://macdailynews.com/2015/10/20/apple-ceo-cook-defends-encryption-opposes-back-door-for-government-spies/”>Apple CEO Cook defends encryption, opposes back door for government spies – October 20, 2015
With Apple court order, activist federal judge seeks to fuel debate about data encryption – October 12, 2015
Judge declines to order Apple to disable security on device seized by U.S. government – October 10, 2015
Apple refused to give iMessages to the U.S. government – September 8, 2015
Obama administration war against Apple just got uglier – July 31, 2015
Edward Snowden: Apple is a privacy pioneer – June 5, 2015
Apple, others urge Obama to reject any proposal for smartphone backdoors – May 19, 2015
U.S. appeals court rules NSA bulk collection of phone data illegal – May 7, 2015
In open letter to Obama, Apple, Google, others urge Patriot Act not be renewed – March 26, 2015
Apple’s iOS encryption has ‘petrified’ the U.S. administration, governments around the world – March 19, 2015
Citizens unite and stand your ground with Apple:
Just say NO!!!
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
Tim Cook’s letter reaches collectivist anti-authoritarian people well, but I think he could add a section that would also convince libertarians:
“The U.S. government is asking a court to order a corporation and its employees to work for the government. That is the ultimate pinnacle of over-regulation. Not, ‘you cannot do this’ or ‘everyone has to obey certain rules’ but instead ‘these specific people are hereby ordered to work for the government, against their own principles and desire.’ ”
Think about it: the engineers at Apple believe that they are being asked to undermine freedom, and a court is trying to ORDER them to do that work. Can you imagine that?
I think the SCOTUS decision in Hobby Lobby was wrong, but I think that the individual engineers should certainly be able to refuse to participate in serving a government’s attempt to undermine the freedom of their own people. Talk about a First Amendment issue. “We would like to draft you to serve the police state, Mr./Ms. Engineer.”
Krioni, I think your understanding of political philosophies is somewhat obscured. It is natural that Libertarians would oppose the government forcing Apple or anyone else to create backdoors in to the private data of citizens. It’s government overreach and most importantly, it is anti-Freedom. FREEDOM is the single most important aspect of libertarian beliefs. Republican as well.
In addition, “collectivists” are not anti-authoritarian. Just the opposite as a matter of fact, which is why totalitarian governments are typical the result of collectivist movements. Socialists, unions, etc. prefer to bestow upon the government great powers of centralized control. EQUALITY is the single most important aspect of collectivist political philosophy. Equality is achieved by diminishing the rights of the individual. This diminishes freedom and liberty of course.
Apple is fighting a battle for liberty and freedom in this case, not equality.
Awwwww, details, details…
Sorry. Your understanding is simplistic and wrong. The political spectrum is better described as a 2-dimensional grid than as a single-axis line. You only know about the libertarian-authoritarian split, which means you conveniently ignore the right-wing authoritarians and also ignore the left-wing libertarians. An example of left-wing (“collectivist”) libertarians would be anarcho-syndicalists. An example of a right-wing authoritarian would be Margaret Thatcher. You are a bit confused, and are equating the term libertarian with ONLY right-wing libertarianism.
Anarchists also believe in maximizing freedom, similar to libertarians. Their differences lie elsewhere. You can disagree with them, but pretending that belief doesn’t exists seems a bit illogical.
More reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#Other_proposed_dimensions
While I agree. We still have a draft system in place. So technically we can still be forced to work for the government.
While I agree, we still have draft system in place. So technically speaking we can be forced to work for the government despite our beliefs or objections.
An insult to human intelligence, is more like it…
If Apple agrees to do this, then every other oppressive regime in the world will insist that Apple does this for them too or else won’t be allowed to sell their products in that country.
The way things are going, the government and courts now seem determined to kill off the biggest tech success in US history.
Good letter from Cook.
I think it’s time for him to take the case to the people and the letter i believe is easy enough to understand but deep enough to illuminate the issues (which many politicians and security services are trying to fudge in their campaign against encryption and Apple).
A backdoor leaves my info and yours vulnerable to criminal hackers, not just photos and stuff like that but also things like bank and credit card info. Considering so much of our stuff nowadays is digital this is really scary
Keep up the P.R war Apple, strong forces are allied against you but you got to keep fighting.
Good job Mr. Cook and the team at Apple.
Do the right thing…
Forget about SKYNET going live … I just felt Big Brother breathing down my neck!!
This is what is wrong with the National Security State- an extreme sense of entitlement and no respect for individual privacy.
Ask yourself this question:
What good purpose would hacking this single Phone serve discounting the obvious problems it would create for everyone else? The fact is that it would not.
It will not bring back one victim from the dead. It will not lessen the loss and heartbreak of those who lost loved ones. It will not make our homes and streets safer.
It will open every internet connected device to being used for nefarious purposes and make them more vulnerable to brute force attack by criminal elements. The political hacks that push these policies- and judges are Politicians in Robes- never properly weigh the impact of unintended consequences or discount it for political expediency.
Since this is an election year, I would charge each us to ask our Senators and Representative their position on this and communicate your thinking to them. The same is true of any Presidential Candidate.
You can’t discount the obvious problems it would create for everyone else (which is why I don’t think Apple should comply), but it might serve a very good purpose in this single case. The phone might contain contact information for other ISIS/al-Queda sleeper agents. If so, catching them might very well make our streets safer. You can’t avoid this issue by trivializing what may be at stake. This could be a very genuine choice between privacy and public safety where one or the other must lose.
Do they have a warrant in this case? If not one can assume they want a precedent w/o a warrant to guide the future.
Has reading gone out of fashion in America? Yes, they have a warrant or they wouldn’t be arguing the All Wrirs Act against Apple. They may not have needed a warrant, however, since the owner of the phone has given consent to search it. The owner’s employee who knew the password is now deceased.
I am interested in why all the one stars to my post? Are you in any doubt as to how this case illustrates how public safety and personal privacy can sometimes conflict? I would come down in favor of privacy here, but I’m not blind to the very real dangers of that choice.
Really? You watch either too much TV, or not enough. So, they are smart enough to use an iPhone, but then not add their own layer of encryption WITHIN that? It didn’t sound like these people were geniuses.
Also, this is NOT about a “single case” – that’s what people who are ignorant of reality keep saying. False. It’s security for everyone, or security for no one. That’s the choice. If you don’t know that yet, you’re either really obtuse and have bad reading comprehension, or you need to educate yourself.
TL;DR
Did Timmy say it was impossible to comply? I don’t think so.
No, he does not state this clearly.
I do believe this is on purpose, because it could be legally relevant. He would state it in court if forced to, but not in an open letter.
The FBI request doesn’t really make any other sense than to force Apple to create a backdoor through a legal backdoor.
As far as I can see, one should be able to copy the (encrypted) data on the iPhone, to a larger computer system running whatever OS one can think off. Then one should be able to brute-force the encrypted data on a copy, and having backups. Apple’s provision (source code, encryption algorithm, technicians) should be more than enough for that.
It does not make sense to change the OS running on the phone to circumvent the ten attempts in order to brute force the encryption.
Brute-force on the passcode (probably just 4 numerals on an iPhone 5c) is fairly easy if one can get past the 10-try limit. Brute-force on the 256-bit private key that is needed for access to the data and that the passcode unlocks might take years for a supercomputer. The key is randomly generated, so it is impossible to guess except by brute force. The passcode and key are only in the data in their encrypted forms, so moving the data to another computer or device won’t help. That is why the FBI wants Apple to get them past the 10-try limit. That would provide the necessary back door to access any iPhone.
Apple is smart to stand firm against this.
The potential damage to the trust between the company and its customer base is reason enough to resist let alone all of the other issues that come into play.
Which of the current crop of candidates is not?
There is an old saying. You can learn more about a man by looking at his enemies than you can by looking at hid friends.
Among those who despise Trump are:
– Radical Environmentalists
– Climate Change Alarmists
– Bill and Hillary Clinton
– Bernie Sanders
– Most of the Republican Establishment
– Most of the Democratic Party
– European Socialists
– American Communist Party
– American Socialist
– Unions
– The American News Media
– Terrorists Groups
– British News Media
– Black Lives Matter kooks
– Illegal Aliens
He must be doing something right.
It’s a who’s who list of every miscreant organization or group around.
Trump is no prize, by any stretch of the imagination, and his seeming inability to stretch his mind around concepts bigger than a snappy soundbite are certainly concerning, but when I look at who hates him the most, it becomes clear that there just might be more character there than in most of the other candidates. The Career Criminal Clintons for sure, Sanders the socialist for sure, but people like the mealymouthed Ted Cruz as well.
So I’m just wondering, which moron is your preferred moron?
Thelonious, why do you suggest that Trump is “doing something right” just because he has a long list of people who strongly disagree with him? (You use the word despise; I suspect that’s your interpretation.) Thoughtful people disagree with Trump and think he would make an appalling president because he gives no indication of having a single thought-out policy to deal with a single issue facing this country, either at home or abroad. His sole message is one or more parts of “It’ll be great. We know how to negotiate. I’m rich. They’re ugly/liars/stupid/corrupt. We’ll hire the best people.”
He has no respect for the law – saying people who disagree with him “deserve to be roughed up” by his supporters, and by “confiscating” the coats of protesters at his meetings and throwing those protesters outside into sub-zero temperatures. He appeals to the base instincts of some people in this country – instincts of greed, racism, misogyny, insults and power – instincts that are still part of the human psyche but ones which members of a civilized society try to control within themselves. In my view he’s a bully of the highest order who is using his money and his privilege to try to buy the white house without any single credible qualification or any experience to legitimize his bid. A lot of people agree with me. That doesn’t make us, or the candidates we choose to support, morons. Unless, of course, you’re a Trump supporter.
and if he is a trump supporter, that makes HIM the moron
This is the issue that cements Tim Cook as a GREAT CEO of Apple. He is the person to meet this dire issue of our day and take it on directly. He’s not only speaking as the CEO of Apple, he’s speaking for the entire computer community, from creators to customers.
BRAVO TIM!!!!!
👏 👏 👏 👏
🍎🍎🍎
The FBI with the aid of the NSA’s unlimited black budget has already de-encripted all of the data on the iPhone. We all know that the NSA pays NGO companies like Booze Allen Hamilton of Edward Snowden fame to do its bidding. Therefore, the FBI does not need Apple’s cooperation; The reason that the FBI if forcing Apple to create the back door is to clearly demonstrate its primacy to all Americans by publicly disregarding 4th Amendment rights and freedoms.
Big gub’mnt is not the nanny state or the environment, but it’s this instance of misusing the All Writs Act of 1789 to intrude and oppress.
When you call your representatives, don’t ask or explain stuff because we are not lawyers; You need to tell him/her “Have the FBI and the NSA back off from Apple.” Something simple like that.
I think there’s another option… and it’s one that Apple can propose as a take it or leave it to the government:
Give us the iPhone. Tell us what you want from it. We will retrieve it and give you back the iPhone and data. We will only do this when a State or Federal judge orders us to do so.
If the information is no longer admirable in court, that’s your problem. But, this does allow Apple to say they helped prevent terrorism in the future and help further the investigation.
No.
Tim Cook forgot to mention one thing.
Apple Pay. I really don’t care about the information on my phone, except now it’s tied to my bank. While the government can get to my money already, I don’t want hackers to get to this info.
Another legal argument for Apple would be, that the FBI is asking Apple to impair the obligation Apple has under its contracts with each and every iPhone owner. I knew the phone was secure when I bought it, and relied upon that.